[steelyourfaith]

Google website asks: Is google censoring ClimateGate?

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[goodnesswins]

YES....I’ve been thinking a lot about the TULIPMANIA of past eons lately....that’s what the GW crap seems to be!

[muir_redwoods]

AGW is the phrenology of the 21st century

[Red Dog #1]

A classic example of “Spiral of Silence” concept.

http://www.cw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Mass%20Media/spiral_of_silence.doc/

[mosesdapoet]

Along with other assumptions made by global warmists..The problem with political discussions on GW is that they steer away from challanging the basic pseudo scientific assumption it is created from . CO2 reaction to light in the infa-red spectrum causing the “Venus effect” because some feel it is too technical . While technical the infamous “hockey stick assumption” is explained in a link in this 07 reposted atticle in
http://www.theusmat.com/

[maryz]

This is a great article (including all the incidental information!) — thanks for posting!

[GOPJ]

This one’s a keeper - great post, ventanax5.

[GOPJ]

The scientists apparently "cherry-picking" and hiding their data revealed recently in the University of East Anglia email scandal are only following in a long tradition that includes even Galileo "cheating" by saying that the Earth must orbit round the Sun - in a perfect circle. Yet, surely most objectionable of all is the use of gullibility and fear as tactics in campaigns. And if fear requires a world of zero risk, that certainly won't include those mercury-filled light bulbs and nuclear power stations.

Today, global-warming "deniers" have all been told they must fall into line with "the science". But this is not science, this is propaganda. And we are not being asked to be more rational but to suspend our own judgment completely. That, not "runaway climate change", is the most dangerous threat to the world today.

more from Martin Cohen - editor of "the Philosopher"...

-

http://climaterealists.com/?id=4617

[SunkenCiv]

...how rational is it to pass laws banning one kind of light bulb (and insisting on their replacement by ones filled with poisonous mercury vapour) in order to "save electricity", while ploughing money into schemes to run cars on ... electricity? How rational is it to pay the Russians once for fossil fuels, and a second time for permission (via carbon credits) to burn them? And how rational is it to suppose that the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere take between 200 and 1,000 years to be felt, but that solutions can take effect almost instantaneously?

Thanks ventanax5!